Lynchburg Virginian

"PRECEPT AND PRACTICE."

Among the many unfounded charges brought against Mr. Clay, by the advocates of the present administration, is the fact, that because he believes in the power of the general government to appropriate portions of the public money in aid of great works of internal improvement, he would therefore be in favor of heavy expenditures for this object—notwithstanding he declares that there being no longer any need of the exercise of this power, he shall hereafter be opposed to such appropriations. This disclaimer has no effect. The bugbear must still be held up; and the country is congratulated on the immense sum of money which has been heretofore saved to the treasury by the author of the Maysville veto, and which will be hereafter saved by his illustrious successor, who is pledged to follow in his footsteps. But, what is the fact? The assertion that they have saved money to the treasury by their Anti-Internal improvement policy, is about as true as that their pledges to economize the other expenditures of the government have been adhered to. Look, for example, at the following tables, showing the amount of moneys expended by the Internal Improvement administration of John Q. Adams, as compared with the Anti-Internal Improvement administration of Andrew Jackson—and then, let the people wonder that their admiration of the Maysville veto should have blinded them to the fact, that, cotemporaneously with that veto, the same signature approved of numberless acts resting upon precisely the same principles, and appropriating public moneys to works of a character much less important, and much less entitled to public patronage. The truth, is, the Maysville Road Bill was vetoed from personal hatred to Henry Clay. It penetrated into the interior of Kentucky, and, what rendered it still more odious, it almost touched Mr. Clay's farm,—and hence it was vetoed, while a bill appropriating money for the improvement of some obscure and unpronounceable rivers and creeks and roads in "faithful" Maine, were unhesitatingly approved! How else can the difference set forth in the subjoined tables be accounted for, by which it appears that, in four years the Administration supposed to be fully committed in favor of this policy expended less than half a million of dollars upon it—while in the eight years of the succeeding Administration, which claimed to be hostile to this policy, there were upwards of six millions expended under this head? But let the figures speak for themselves. They were compiled, by the New York Courier, from official documents:

Mr. Adams's internal improvement extravagance.

For the year 1825, $11,000

1826, 85,325

1827, 82,176

1828, 312,313

$490,814

General Jackson's anti-internal improvement economy.

For the year 1829, $129,493

1830, 367,114

1831, 445,474

1832, 745,575

$2,687,666

1833, 495,600

1834, 629,956

1835, 502,257

1836, 1,786,984

$3,414,797